Monday, January 8, 2007

Overdevelopment: Pro & Con

Two differing views on overdevelopment:

Pro: How Sprawl Got a Bad Name

Con: Battling Teardowns, Saving Neighborhoods

Notice how the Pro guy uses bias as a reason a la John Liu.


Anonymous said...

We live an era of increasing fuel consumption and greedy appetites for increased square footage in the average American home. We'd all better consider eradicating the middle class because we're all going to have to become very wealthy overnight if we really think we can afford to maintain these energy eating Behemoths! Overdevelopment has gone way over the top and has got to be reigned in!

Anonymous said...

Naw, after a generation or so, those gigantic buildings will be cut up into rooming houses.

Remember the 1930s?

It has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future.

Anonymous said...

First and most important, communities must realize that they aren't helpless in the face of teardowns. They have choices: They can simply take the kind of community they get, or they can go to work to get the kind of community they want. They have to decide what they like about the community and don't want to lose. They must develop a vision for the future of their community, including where and how to accommodate growth and change. Then they must put in place mechanisms to ensure that their vision is not compromised.

Where in the hell does this person live? Not in the real world. We have no choice as to what is happening around us. The chips area stacked against us.

But worse, we can do nothing about this as long as do not have leadership in preservation. For anyone to write this drivel tells me that they never fought in the barricades nor understand the process.

The old leadership is tired and totally unequal to the task. Oh, but they are good at one thing, and that is keeping us peasants down.

Anonymous said...

I really dislike the term "development". It assumes that your going to "improve" upon what's there and in most cases it doesn't. Let me illustrate the point: There's a beautiful Redwood forest out there with trees that are hundreds of years old. Magnificent! What "improvement" do you think anyone could make upon this? Save the word "development" for developing good ideas or, maybe, "developing" a new vaccine to eradicate a dread disease. And let's call "developers" what they really are (in most cases) "destroyers" and what they do "destruction"!

Anonymous said...

I think that a bus tour of featuring all of those Malba Mc Mansions, that the wanna-be "Goom-bahs" have built, ought to convince everyyone how ugly a (formerly beautiful) neighborhood can become when it is overdeveloped to the max! (Oh, and don't bother to call me anti-Italian for I 'm Italian American myself)!

Anonymous said...

There is no more actual land that has not been developed. We are turning from Earth into a large ball of pavement!!